Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-15-Speech-1-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060515.16.1-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank Members for a very interesting debate.
In conclusion, as I have already said, it is a good compromise. Each side would have liked to see this compromise go a bit further in one direction or another. However, it takes into account, in a balanced way, the interests of all stakeholders.
I agree that, alone, it cannot solve the problem of obesity. As you know, we have generally followed a non-regulatory approach to deal with such a complex issue. We have set up a platform and we are discussing with industry and stakeholders how we can each help to solve this problem. However, in certain areas legislation and regulation are required. We therefore need a combination of all actions and initiatives to achieve the ultimate goal.
Those who have worked with me for the past year and a half know by now that I tend to speak in a very open and frank way. I can honestly say that this is the only legislative proposal I never thought I would have to fight for. It is a proposal based on logic. It states that if someone wants to make money by using a marketing tool, that person or company has to tell the truth. It is simple.
We talk about consumer choice. What would consumers do: set up a little chemical laboratory at home to analyse every food to see whether it has sugar or fat? How can consumers exercise this choice unless someone checks that this is accurate? Regarding health claims, will consumers carry out clinical tests in at home to see whether a specific product lowers cholesterol? It is impossible! That is why it is important to have this legislation adopted, especially after the compromise, and I am surprised that there has been no legislation so far in this respect.
What happens if we do not have this legislation? What will be the result? Anybody can say anything and hope for the best. In the European Union, all of us, including the leaders of large Member States, pledge to place the European citizen at the heart of European policies. I believe that this is a good test of whether we actually do so.
I firmly agree that better regulation is an essential policy for us. However, that does not mean there should be no regulation, especially when it comes to health and consumer protection. It means we have to do it in the proper way. As I stated in my introductory remarks, I believe that with Parliament’s suggestions and amendments we now have a good piece of legislation which does not put any unnecessary burden on the industry and, at the same time, protects the consumer.
We tend to forget a very important aspect: the internal market. You have my word that these areas of health will be regulated. The question is whether it will be done at Community level, meaning that there will be one level playing field in the internal market and that industry, benefiting from the 450 million consumers, can be competitive, or whether there will be 25 different sets of rules and regulations breaking up the internal market. All along I have been in dialogue with the industry and this is what it would like. I always ask industry representatives whether they would prefer one piece of legislation, even a strict one, or 25 different laws with flexible levels. They prefer to have one piece of legislation. That is a very important factor.
On wine, I understand what was said, but we have to remember that wine is an alcoholic beverage. It may come from an agricultural product, but it contains alcohol and it must be covered by this legislation.
On the issue of fluoride, I must remind you that the problem mentioned is compulsory fluoridation, which does not come under this legislation but under the Member States’ competence. It is a different issue and we could discuss it, but it is not part of this legislation, because the claims and additions in question are voluntary."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples